1. ' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 13-8-1987 of respondent No, 1 vide which the adverse remarks were entered in his A.C.R. For the year 1986 by him. He has also challenged the subsequent order dated 10-1-1988 of respondent No, 3 through which his departmental appeal dated 20-9-1987 was rejected.
2. ' According to the appellant he was posted as Prosecuting Inspector Police at Lakki; District Bannu in the year 1986. Prior to it he had already served there but under different circumstances as this time the D.S.P., Mr. Zahiruddin who was on inimical terms with him due to personal reasons was after his career and at his instance respondent No, 1 gave him the adverse remarks. He made a representation to respondent No, 3 but the same was dismissed without hearing him. This practice in vogue is against the principles of natural justice and the him. This practice in vogue is against the principles of natural justice and the Islamic Law. He was not given any warning/explanation about his conduct during the period under reference. The adverse remarks would block his promotion. It so happened that respondent No, 1 awarded a reward of Rs,200 with recommendatory certificate to the appellant on 18-1-1986 for his overall good performance and the period in question covers the period under report surprisingly. The Court may direct the respondent No, 1 to place before it the Katcha Register maintained by him which contains the activities of the subordinate officials including the appellant for the year 1986. Similarly respondent No, 3 was bound to furnish the appellant with the copy of the whole report and not the particular part affecting him adversely. He placed on the record the copies of the F.I.Rs, Nos. 5 and 6, dated 13-1-1981 of Police Station Takht Nasratti, District Karak regarding the enmity between the appellant and the said Mr. Zahiruddin, D.S.P.
3. ' Together with the appeal there was an application for condo nation of delay in filing appeal on the ground that he was awfully busy in performing his duties and accordingly could not approach the Tribunal in time. Since the impugned order is mala fide, void and illegal, therefore, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice.
4. ' The respondents submitted the written statement denying the allegations of the appellant and alleging therein that the appeal is not maintainable as the appellant has not exhausted the departmental remedy before approaching the Tribunal, that the appeal is barred by time and that the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction. Further it was asserted that a D.S.P. Being always a junior officer than the S.P., he could not be in a position to influence the S.P. In awarding the adverse remarks to a subordinate officer. D.S.P. Mr. Zahiruddin had got no enmity with the appellant and he was not instrumental in spoiling the career of the appellant. The remarks were the result of the personal observation and knowledge of the S.P. There is no law obliging the respondents to give notice of personal hearing to the appellant. The departmental appeal contains all the grounds on which the aggrieved person relies and the authority assesses the same before passing the order upon it. The same was done in the present case. The appellant was verbally warned by respondent No, 1 on many occasions to mend his ways. The reward of Rs,200 along with the certificates was in recognition of his work during the year, 1985 whereas the adverse remarks relate to the year, 1986.
5. The Katcha Register maintained by respondent No, 1 is confidential document and cannot be produced in Court in the public interest. The A.C.Rs, are prepared under Rules 13; 17 and only the adverse remarks are to be conveyed to the concerned officer and not the whole report.
6. 'Learned counsel for the appellant argued that A,C.R. Is such a precious document on which the entire career of an officer depends. It affects his seniority, promotion and further retention in service besides other co-related matters and before giving adverse remarks to an officer, Pie Reporting Officer as well as the Countersigning Officer are legally bound to warn/counsel him for his acts/omissions during the period under report. A perusal of the impugned remarks would show that his honesty was treated as doubtful and in the pen-picture it was endorsed that "on occasions complaints were received against him for maintaining relations with the bad characters of Lakki City". The Reporting Officer according to the learned counsel for the appellant was, therefore, bound to call explanation of the appellant as and when he received complaints against him but the record shows that no action was taken against the officer. His integrity was labeled as doubtful but the Reporting Officer kept quiet and mum during the whole year and at the end of the year he mentioned this fact in the A.C.R. Learned counsel further argued that Mr. Zahir-ud-Din the then D.S.P. Lakki was not on good terms with the appellant so he persuaded the Reporting Officer to give the appellant adverse remarks in order to spoil his career. According to the counsel since the A.C.R.
7. Affects the terms and conditions of service of an officer, therefore, it is incumbent upon the appellate forum to summon the aggrieved person at the time of deciding the appeal/representation regarding the expunction of the adverse remarks. This was not done in the case and it is only known to the authority as to whether he applied his mind to the facts of the case and the averments in the representation while deciding the same or not. According to the learned counsel for the appellant since the impugned order was mala fide, void and bad in law, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice.
8. ' On the other hand learned Special Public Prosecutor assisted by P.b.S.P. Bannu argued that appellant deserved the remarks given to him by respondent No, 1 who had no enmity with him and who cannot be deemed to be under the pressure of Mr. Zahir-ud-Din, D.S.P. There is no provision for personal hearing in the rules in such like matters. Over and above the appeal is barred by time and it may be dismissed solely on this ground.
9. ' We have given our patient hearing to the arguments and have gone through the record produced by the representative of the department.
10. There is no denying the fact that appeal was preferred with a considerable delay but the Court is empowered to condone the same if the situation demands so and in the present case we are sure that there are sufficient grounds to excuse the delay. It is an admitted fact that the A.C.R. Is such a document which affects the entire career of an employee so while writing the same, the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Officer is not only responsible to his good conscience but also under the doctrine of natural justice a person must be treated fairly and judiciously and may not be condemned unheard. They are supposed to comment upon various aspects of his personality very carefully. The A.C.Rs, may not be given on the basis of nepotism, favoritism and likes and dislikes. The officer may not be liked by a Reporting Officer or a Countersigning Authority but at the same time so far his performance, integrity, competence and other traits are concerned, he may be quite up to the mark. Therefore, the A.C.R. May not be written in a haphazard and clumsy manner. It must represent the true state of affairs during the period under report and in any case it may not reflect any happening in the year in which it is written. The Initiating Authority or the Countersigning Authority is responsible to call fox his explanation in case any complaint is received by them. Mere writing that complaints were received during the period under report would not absolve the authority from the responsibility of writing the A.C.R. In its true sense. What happened in the present case is that he was treated as an officer of `B' category which pre-supposes his promotion of in his turn. Nowhere in the impugned A.C.R. He was treated as an officer of 'C' category by the Reporting Officer, notwithstanding the fact that he was labeled to be a dishonest officer, having contacts with persons of bad character of the area. Surely if we take into consideration the adverse remarks then the Reporting Officer was legally bound to call for the explanation of the officer concerned and if not satisfied to warn him and also initiate enquiry against him if the appellant had not improved himself. This was not done in the instant case. On a look of the record of the officer we have come across the previous reports in which he was either marked as 'A' or 'B' and his performance was appreciated by his immediate Officers throughout. It is strange to note that how the officer became dishonest and an associate of bad characters of Lakki City for a period of 3 months only while prior and after that he received the good reports from different officers. Similarly an adverse A.C.R. As we held earlier spoils the career of an officer therefore, just like other departmental proceedings/enquiry so in the case of representation against the adverse remarks the appellate forum must summon the aggrieved person and hear him before the decision on his appeal/representation is made. Besides this not the adverse remarks but the entire A.C.Rs,, whether good or bad must be communicated to the officer in order to encourage him to work more efficiently and honestly and also to give him a chance to improve his defects. Of course A.C.R. Guides a person so he must be aware of his good as well as bad aspects for the period under report. Furthermore the term average may be deleted from the A.C.R.
11. Of the officers because in certain cases a good officer will get an average A.C.R. From the hands of his superior who is not happy with him. It is experienced that an officer having to his credit average A.C.Rs, will not be B promoted to the next higher post, if the same falls vacant. The columns in the A.C.R. May be either very good or good or poor. The delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. By accepting the present appeal we remand the case to respondent No, 3 who will summon the appellant within 3 months from today and make an appropriate order on the representation of the appellant, in the light of the findings made above. In case if appellant is not called upon to explain his position within the stipulated period, the adverse remarks shall automatically stand expunged from the A.C.R. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room.